Unions Turn Cold Shoulder on Charters

Veteran teacher and one-time union activist Linda J. Page could
hardly be prouder of the charter school she helped found in Colorado
under the wing of her local teachers' association. But the start-up and
its aftermath have left a bitter taste.

After five years and what she considers enormous success with a
student enrollment that has had more than its share of disaffected
teenagers, the CIVA Charter High School has come unmoored both from the
local union that birthed it and the national union that made it a
model.

"Nobody seems to have the time or the inclination to worry" about
the loss, Ms. Page said recently. "I'm afraid we'll just ride off into
the sunset and won't have made any difference in the bigger
picture."

Ms. Page and others fear, moreover, that cutting the Colorado
Springs school adrift is symptomatic of union disengagement from the
charter school movement, which has added new contours to the face of
American education.

Floated early on as an idea by the American Federation of Teachers'
legendary leader Albert Shanker, charter schools seemed to offer
parents and teachers opportunities for creating a variety of public
schools free from bureaucratic meddling.

But as laws favoring the new-style institutions passed in state
after state, starting with Minnesota in 1991, teachers' unions
generally opposed them. They said that the laws, especially the ones
adopted in states where Republicans had the upper hand, allowed
charters to undercut union contracts, siphon money from existing public
schools, and put profit ahead of education. Mr. Shanker and the AFT
stayed on record as favoring charter schools, but found very few to
like.

By the mid- 1990s, however, many unionists seemed to be mulling over
the possibilities of climbing aboard the movement. The National
Education Association's Charter School Initiative, which in 1996 swept
up the CIVA project and five other schools that were in the planning
stage, was one of the brightest signs of a possible shift in attitude.
Four NEA-endorsed schools eventually opened.

Other signs also heartened charter school advocates. The United
Teachers of Dade, one of the nation's largest local teachers' unions,
announced that it was forming a partnership with the for-profit Edison
Schools Inc. to open charter schools in overcrowded areas of the
Miami-Dade County district.

Now that momentum seems to have stalled. The NEA's initiative ended
after four years, as planned, in 2000, with a guide for educators
interested in starting charter schools and a final report whose
conclusions the union has never released publicly. No follow-up is in
the works.

For its part, the AFT has largely waved away the charter school
movement as a "governance change" that doesn't necessarily contribute
to raising standards or student achievement.

Still, some state unions are interested in embracing charter school
teachers to keep their memberships from eroding, and some locals have
been willing to work with education management ventures, such as
Edison, rather than let the businesses find other ways to start the
largely independent schools. But the prospect that teachers' groups
will fight for charter schools as a democratizing reform seems to have
dimmed. While unions have tended to envision charters as a means for
teachers and parents to establish schools more to their liking, many
legislators and their business allies have seen them as a way to open
public education to the discipline of the marketplace.

The marketplace is a long way from Linda Page's hopes for the
CIVA—for Character, Integrity, Vision, and the Arts school. She
threw herself into the start-up because, along with the Colorado
Springs Education Association's then- president, she believed teachers
could create a needed school. A staunch supporter of public education,
she also wanted to change it for the better.

"Principals and assistant principals could learn something from CIVA
about how to run a school more collaboratively, and about site-based
management and smaller schools," Ms. Page said. But despite the
school's description on its letterhead as "a Colorado Springs Education
Association charter school in partnership with School District 11,"
neither district nor association has shown much interest lately.

The director of the local NEA affiliate, Dan C. Daly, acknowledged
that the association's interest in CIVA is minimal—largely, he
says, because the relationship between the school and the district has
changed. Under the terms of its renewed charter, the school no longer
receives a host of services from the district, and the district no
longer employs CIVA's dozen or so teachers.

As a result, though all the teachers are union members, the CSEA no
longer represents them in contract negotiations, said Mr. Daly, who has
been on the job with the 1,500-member union for a year. "I think my
board of directors would tell you [charter schools] don't really have
an impact on us or us on them," he said. "We have enough to deal with
on our plate."

Competitive Urge

Across the country in Akron, Ohio, the teachers' union set different
priorities that deeply entangled it with charter schools.

Up until last week, union Vice President Neil Quirk was pushing to
start a charter school, though he styles himself as an implacable foe
of an innovation he says will be the destruction of public schools.

The school Mr. Quirk proposed would have been chartered by the Akron
school board and run by Mr. Quirk's union, the Akron Education
Association. Both the board and the union are on record opposing
charter schools, and both are part of a coalition challenging parts of
Ohio's charter school law in court.

But Mr. Quirk was less interested in paradoxes than realities.

One reality is that three years ago, Akron industrialist and charter
school magnate David L. Brennan began operating a school of
computer-based learning for dropouts and potential dropouts in his
hometown. Another is that educational alternatives for students who are
having trouble in regular schools are a kind of specialty for Mr.
Quirk, who led the way in establishing about a dozen programs of that
type around the 32,000-student district.

A third reality, in the union official's view, is that charter
schools are harming the district and ill-serving students. Mr. Quirk
believes teachers in his union, which is independent of both the NEA
and the AFT, can do a better job.

When children depart regular public schools for charters, taking the
state's per-pupil payment with them, Mr. Quirk said, "you may have lost
$500,000 in revenue, but only $150,000 to $160,000 in expenses." That's
because of the way economies of scale play out and because local
charter schools attract students who are cheaper to educate—
elementary-level pupils, for instance—leaving the more expensive
ones behind, he said.

What's more, he argues, the education is often inferior. That's the
case with Mr. Brennan's Akron Life Skills Center, which offers students
a less rigorous but similar program to one the district already runs,
Mr. Quirk contends. To compete with Life Skills, Mr. Quirk wanted to
enlarge and enhance the existing program, aided by the greater
regulatory freedom awarded to charter schools.

"We think we will be able to give a quality educational program," he
said earlier this month. And there would have been a surprising bonus
for the district because the union intended to return to it the money
that wasn't needed to run the program—maybe even as much as half
of the per- pupil payment, Mr. Quirk estimated.

The union leader still favors the plan, which drew support from most
of the Akron school board, but last week he bowed to opposition from
the district's treasurer and withdrew it. Now he hopes the school he
dreamed of can be opened by the district itself, working with a
nonprofit Marion, Ohio, group specializing in online learning.

Just as with the union school, Mr. Quirk wants the proposed district
school to "raise the consciousness" of the community. He says that
people need to know that the quality of education suffers at the hands
of profit-making firms, a view disputed by officials of White Hat
Management, which runs the Akron Life Skills Center and about a dozen
other charter schools around the state.

Mr. Quirk's view is shared by Tom Mooney, the president of the Ohio
Federation of Teachers. The leader of the state AFT affiliate applauds
the Akron teachers' idea and criticizes Ohio's charter law as warped by
"a real bias toward privatization" that makes it almost impossible for
the school district itself to compete with White Hat.

Other teacher leaders around the country also say their opposition
to charter schools stems from doubts about the quality of the education
offered in those schools, especially the estimated 10 percent of the
nation's nearly 2,400 that are run by for-profit managers.

Union officials say they worry, as well, that charter schools will
harden lines of social division. Charter schools in poor neighborhoods
may have to scrape by on per- pupil payments that in wealthier
neighborhoods go further because student needs are less pressing, the
leaders contend. And they complain that charter schools, though public,
have often been able to escape the accountability measures applied to
regular public schools.

Even one of the unions' toughest critics, Mike Antonucci, who
publishes a newsletter on union activities from his Carmichael, Calif.,
base, concedes that the teachers' groups have an important role to play
as watchdogs. "We can give them some credit in some cases for some
things to keep charter schools honest," he said.

But too often, he and others charge, when unions aim arrows at
charter schools for failing to serve the public interest, they are
masking their own self- interest.

Accountability is a case in point, according to Eric Premack, the
co-director of the Charter School Development Center in Sacramento,
Calif. "A lot of the regulatory-process-based accountability in the
traditional system has very little to do with protecting the interests
of children and much to do with protecting the interest of adults in
the system," he said. "Getting away from that is one of the fundamental
tenets of the charter school movement."

Gains at Risk?

It is no secret that the self-interests of union members and of the
unions themselves, at least as they have traditionally been understood,
bump up against charter facts of life.

It is partly for that reason that NEA President Bob Chase has
carefully linked the "new unionism" that he has preached, with its
emphasis on education reform and collaboration rather than old-style
labor antagonism, to his organization's work on charter schools. By the
lights of the old unionism, opposition would be the predictable
response.

After all, surveys have suggested that as a whole, charter school
teachers work for generally lower salaries than regular public school
teachers (though often not much lower), take on more work, and forgo
job protections. Their willingness to do more for less might help drag
down unions' hard-fought gains in those areas, the thinking goes.

Just as bad from the point of view of many unionists, the existence
of charter schools tends to threaten the school district structure
within which the unions have won their victories. Charter schools also
typically smudge the line between labor and management, a staple of the
union worldview.

Finally, and perhaps most to the point, unions, especially as
bargaining agents, are not welcome in many charter schools. In others,
they don't seem relevant or at least not a high priority.

"I don't know if we would have a contract if we hadn't been endorsed
by the NEA," said Joan E. Heffernan, the director of the Integrated Day
Charter School in Norwich, Conn., one of the four schools that belonged
to the national union's Charter School Initiative. The contract with
the school is anything but a straitjacket, she hastened to say, with
provisions for teachers to eat lunch with pupils and spend extra time
on schoolwide retreats.

But the concept of management-labor separation did keep her out of
staff meetings for a while, and under the contract, teachers with a
grievance would pursue it before the school's board, three of whose
nine members are teachers at the school.

Researchers have estimated that perhaps a quarter of charter school
teachers belong to unions, and a smaller number are represented by
unions in collective bargaining.

State charter school laws on that score, as in so many other ways,
vary considerably. A few prohibit union membership, though most allow
it, and a few require that teachers belong to the local union and be
covered by the local contract. The last is the arrangement that the
national unions have generally favored, but it is an anathema to many
who want to give charters a chance.

"The most minor innovation in charter schools, maybe awarding some
teachers bonuses for specific actions—if a union is involved, you
have to negotiate with them," Mr. Antonucci, the union critic,
said.

Work to Do

More than most, James P. Testerman has mulled over the potential
costs of the charter school movement to teachers' unions. In fact, with
Mr. Testerman in the lead, the Pennsylvania State Education Association
has attracted attention for grappling with the issue and declaring that
the unions must organize the teachers in the charter schools they can't
stop.

"Fix charter schools or make them go away—those are the only
approaches we have," said the former middle school science teacher and
current PSEA treasurer. A report endorsed last year by PSEA members
said charters were unlikely to vanish in the state, where the number of
the new-style schools swelled from six in 1997 to 68 in 2000. The paper
went on to lay out a strategy for the union that includes seeking
legislation that would protect school districts from losing money
because of charter school enrollments, as well as helping local
affiliates better compete with charter schools.

Perhaps the most striking recommendation was that the union set the
aim of organizing all charter school employees, eventually bringing
them under the NEA affiliate's collective bargaining umbrella.

The report is blunt about why: "The main source of PSEA's
influence is that almost all Pennsylvania teachers are
unionized. If we want to maintain our influence, our ability to do
ANYTHING, we must make sure that education remains a unionized
industry."

Mr. Antonucci warns that if unions follow through on such a
resolution, charter schools run the risk of being hugged to death. But
Mr. Testerman says the idea is "natural" because the PSEA exists to
serve public school teachers.

So far, only one Keystone State charter school has been
unionized—and that by the Pennsylvania Federation of Teachers,
the AFT affiliate. Mr. Testerman said a few other charter schools have
approached the PSEA about union representation.

New Directions

Meanwhile, union leaders in Miami are taking a very different tack
to preserving membership and shaping school improvement
efforts—one that plunges teachers right into the management of
charter schools.

The United Teachers of Dade, originally an affiliate of the AFT and
now allied with both national unions, has announced a partnership with
New York City-based Edison Schools to open some nine charter schools in
the area. The move is the culmination of several trends affecting the
20,000-member union and the Miami- Dade County schools, union officials
say.

State leaders, led by Gov. Jeb Bush, have been successfully pushing
for charter schools, even to the extent of providing funding for
construction costs. Charter school teachers have been complaining,
though, because their pay is less than that of teachers in regular
public schools.

At the same time, students continue to pour into the 375,000-
student district, the nation's fourth largest and one of its most
crowded. Finally, the union has a history of experimenting with
decentralization efforts, without making much permanent headway,
according to union officials.

"In an overcrowded district like Dade, we thought we could help out
the district by getting some of that construction and start-up money
only available to charter schools," said Merri Mann, the director of
educational and professional issues for the United Teachers of Dade.
"It was very practical, and we'd be able to run the schools in ways
we've been pushing all these years, with good professional development
and collegial action between teachers and administrators."

The opening of the first new school with Edison, the nation's
largest for-profit manager of public schools, has been pushed forward
several times. It is now set for as soon as the 2003-04 school
year.

The partnership seemed to make sense because the union already had a
good relationship with Edison, which runs a district school, and wasn't
prepared to run a school solo, Ms. Mann said.

A second partnership involving charters may also be on the horizon.
Interested in having a hand in the conversion of a regular public
school to charter status, the Dade County union threw in its lot with
Chancellor Academies of Coconut Grove, Fla. Chancellor, headed by
former Dade schools Superintendent Octavio J. Visiedo, runs both
private and charter schools and recently merged with Beacon Education
Management Inc. of Westborough, Mass.

The teachers' group and the new educational management company
narrowly missed their chance in December, when the school board voted
down the conversion of a Miami school, where parents and teachers had
both voted in favor of the move. The school has appealed the decision
to the state board of education. What's more, the union is building
toward running charter schools on its own. With an eye on that prize,
UTD officials have not only added new expertise, but have also taken
the extraordinary step—for a teachers' union—of lobbying
for lifting the cap on the number of charters allowed in Florida.

"I wish we didn't have the need for charters schools, that schools
would get the autonomy they need, and that every school in the county
would be a school of choice with all kinds of schools," Ms. Mann said.
"But we have been pushing and pushing that, and we've gotten nowhere
except talking."

The Dade County union's actions stand in contrast to the stance of
its parent groups in Washington, particularly the AFT. But the 1.1
million-member national federation hasn't stood in the way, Ms. Mann
said.

"While the AFT might not have been enthusiastic about this and
certainly not about Edison, there's a lot of flexibility there," she
said. "They don't put an iron hand on you."

AFT officials in Washington have little good these days to say about
charter schools. Both national unions have endorsed the charter idea
within fairly narrow limits, requiring district control over the
schools and collective bargaining for the teachers within them. Charter
proponents maintain that the limits either stymie start-ups or
hamstring the schools from innovation once they get going.

At bottom, said Nancy Van Meter, who heads privatization oversight
for the AFT, charter schools are not a good place for the union to
invest its energy.

"Our leadership is focused on how do we work with school districts
and our members to make sure schools meet the standards and provide the
kind of professional development that helps with that," she said. "We
just don't have the kind of resources it would take to help individual
teachers who are trying to start schools."

In other words, the centralizing movement toward stricter academic
standards for all students could trump the decentralizing thrust of
charter schools.

At the 2.6 million-member NEA, the cold shoulder is less frigid than
at the AFT. Nonetheless, NEA's new policy on charter schools, adopted
at last year's union convention, does not make major changes from the
previous one, though it does evidence greater flexibility.

For example, while sticking to the view that charters should not be
granted to for-profit businesses, the policy agrees that grantees
should be able to contract with such businesses for services. The
policy acknowledges that forcing schools to adhere to all the rules
that apply to regular public schools would defeat their purpose.

And it also sets some further guidelines for funding that in many
cases would increase the money available to charter schools.

Robert M. McClure, who co-directed the NEA's Charter School
Initiative, acknowledged he was disappointed with the outcome. "The
resolution is not in sync with my vision of and hopes for charter
schools," he said. Mr. McClure retired from the NEA last year, and is
now a consultant whose practice includes a District of Columbia charter
school.

Added the former NEA official: "I also still firmly believe as a
longtime teacher that charter schools should be on the radar screen of
teacher organizations."

Vol. 21, Issue 28, Pages 1, 12-13

Published in Print: March 27, 2002, as Unions Turn Cold Shoulder on Charters

An issues
page on charter schools from American
Federation of Teachers includes the criteria the AFT has set for
acceptable charter school legislation. "Currently," the union states,
"no state meets all of the AFT’s criteria for charter school
legislation."

Finally, read a brief overview of NEA's Charter School
Initiative. Designed "to study the efficacy of charter schools" and
help union members create new kinds of schools, the initiative ended
(as planned) in 2000.

"Personnel
Policy in Charter Schools," from the Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation, finds—according to a forward by Chester E. Finn
Jr.—that "freed from procedural red tape but held accountable for
results, charter schools pursue innovative personnel policies that are
more in line with the deregulatory approach than the regulatory
one."

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.